State Judge Upholds PA's #VoterID Law.

HARRISBURG _ Setting the stage for a fight in state Supreme Court, a lower court judge upheld Pennsylvania's controversial voter identification law Wednesday, rejecting claims by critics that it would result in the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters.

Opponents of the law had sought an injunction to keep the law from taking effect on Election Day. Ultimately, they want the law declared unconstitutional.

In a 70-page opinion issued this morning, Judge Robert E. Simpson wrote that he was "convinced that efforts by [the state] and interested groups will fully educate the public," on the law's requirement to show photo identification every time someone votes and that the state "will fully comply," with the law," Simpson wrote.

And plaintiffs' witneseses who said they'd be unable to vote in the Nov. 6 general election would likely qualify for absentee ballots,' Simpson wrote.

With this morning's ruling the state "can continue to focus our attention on ensuring that every Pennsyvlania citizen who wants to vote has the identification necessary to make sure their vote counts," Gov. Tom Corbett said in a statement.

Secretary of State Carol Aichele, whose agency oversees elections and was named as a defendant in the case, said the law will "reinforce the principle of one person, one vote.

"By giving us a reliable way to verify the identity of each voter, the Voter ID law will enahnce confidence in our elections," Aichele added. "We will continue our outreach efforts to make sure all legal Pennsylvania voters know about the law, and know how to get a free ID to vote if needed.”

In a nationally watched, week-long hearing in Harrisburg, lawyers for the state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, acting largely on behalf of Philadelphia residents, argued that the state had made it too onerous to get the proper form of identification needed for voting and that efforts to make sure no one fell through the cracks had fallen short.

The plaintiffs' lawyers also argued that the state had not proven the law was necessary to combat election fraud -- as argued by supporters -- and was little more than a partisan effort by majority Republicans to shut out urban, minorities, the elderly and students who historically vote Democrat in a key, presidential year .

In a statement, David Gersch, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he was disappointed by the ruling but "will seek to appeal." With the resignation of Republican Justice Joan Orie Melvin, who's fighting public corruption charges, the court is split 3-3 between Democrats and the GOP.

"At trial, we demonstrated that there are about a million registered voters who lack the ID necessary to vote under Pennsylvania's photo ID law," he said. "If the court's decision stands, a lot of those people will not be able to vote in November."

Lawyers for the state did not address the voter fraud question, instead arguing that the Legislature was within its rights to pass the law and that potentially onerous requirements to obtain proper identification were not unconstitutional.

They also argued that state officials had made strenuous efforts to educate the public and that no one would be turned away from the polls on Election Day. That included a yet-to-be issued photo identification card by the Department of State that could only be used for voting.

With fraud taken off the table, Witold Walczak, the legal director for the state branch of the ACLU, said the plaintiffs had hoped Simpson would "show greater concern for the hundreds of thousands of voters who will be disenfranchised by this law."

“I just can't believe it,” Viviette Applewhite, of Philadephia, the 93-year-old lead plaintiff, said in a statement. “Too many people have fought for the right to vote to have it taken away like this.”

In court, Apoplewhite, who is African-American, testified that she'd cast her first vote for President Franklin Roosevelt and had marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King for civil rights in the 1960s.

In his opinion, Simpson ruled that the plaintiffs had not met a six-pronged test for obtaining an injunction. They did not, among other things, "establish that greater injury will occur from refusing to grant the injunction than granting it."

"This is because the process of implementation, in general, and public outreach, in particular, is much harder to start or restart than it is to stop," Simpson wrote.

Granting the injunction would "interfere" with a state public outreach effort, starting after Labor Day, that includes TV advertisements, automated phone calls and a billboard campaign, Simpson, a Republican and former Northampton County court judge, wrote.

Simpson agreed with state arguments that laws are presumed to be constitutional unless proven otherwise, writing that "any party challenging a legislative enactment has a heavy burden and legislation will not be invalidated unless it clearly and plainly violates the constitution of this Commonwealth."

The law does not "expressly disenfranchise or burden any qualified elector or group of electors," Simpson wrote. "The statute simply gives poll workers another tool to verify that the person voting is who they claim to be."

Simpson further rejected the plaintiffs' claims that only a constitutional amendment could change voting qualifications in the state, writing that "although every citizen has a general right to vote, states have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right," may be exercised.

This spring, the Department of State developed a list of 758,000 registered voters who may not have state-issued photo ID by comparing voter rolls to PennDOT’s drivers license database. But the list is flawed, including voters who entered slightly different names on their drivers license and voter registration forms.

People on the list also may have one of the other forms of ID that meets the state’s criteria, such a student ID with an expiration date or a passport.

Still, opponents of the law say the state’s list suggests hundreds of thousands might still lack ID. Democrats say their voters are more likely to be among those on the outside.

And according to a Morning Call analysis of the data, Democrats might have something. The state’s flawed list of voters without state ID includes 31,018 registered voters in Lehigh and Northampton counties. Of those, 16,823 were Democrats and 9,583 were Republicans. The other 4,612 voters were registered independent or with minor parties.

With an appeal expected, the ruling does little to provide any certainty to local election officials, said Lehigh County Deputy Election Director Terri Harkins.

Harkins said the county plans to train poll workers on the new law in September and October, but with the caveat that the Supreme Court could strike it down a week before the election.

"We're just continuing to prepare the way we were before," she said.

County officials are hoping to get detailed guidance on how to implement the law next week at an annual statewide meeting of election officials.

Democrats will have to work even harder to make sure voters have the ID they need to vote, said Lehigh County Democratic Party Chairman Rick Daugherty.

But he hopes the state also steps up its game and makes state IDs available outside PennDOT license centers.

"My hope would be the state would expand access to getting voter IDs by having at outside locations like senior centers and shopping malls," said Daugherty, who is also running for Congress in the 15th District against U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent.

Legislative Democrats, who had railed against the law, were sharply critical of Simpson's decision.

"The decision of the court is highly disturbing and disconcerting," Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Allegheny, said in a statement. "Without question, the goal of the Voter ID law was to disenfranchise voters and suppress voters so that Republicans could gain the upper hand in this fall's presidential election."

House Minority Leader Frank Dermody, D-Allegheny, who told reporters earlier this month that he'd be disenfranchised by the law, said in a statement that he hoped "the Supreme Court will right this terrible wrong and will overturn this decision in time for the November elections."

Olivia Thorne, the president of the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters, said the elections advocacy group was "discouraged but undaunted" by Simpson's decision.

"We will continue to work to educate voters about voter identification requirements and help people get a photo ID while we await the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision," she said.

The court's decision "protects the integrity of our electoral process at every level – city, state and federal. I applaud the Commonwealth Court for displaying courage and conviction in this ruling," state Republican Chairman Rob Gleason said in a statement.

"With sensational headlines and half-truths about this legislation being touted by partisan critics, we are fortunate that the Commonwealth Court realized that the sanctity of our elections was at stake – and took appropriate action to protect a cherished right," he said.

Current Comments

I don't know why they are doing this kind of law to our country.. aswdlaw.com/

Posted By: James Fargo | Aug 16, 2012 7:13:52 AM

Federal Law mandates I.D. for all doctor visits, procedures, etc.. If you know of any doctor not requiring it he is breaking federal law.

Posted By: Lodota | Aug 15, 2012 7:33:28 PM

My 72 year old mother would not know where to find her ID. It has been tucked away for years. Doesn't need it for Dr visits either.

The Commonwealth has failed to fullfill their obligation in providing access to anyone needing an ID. Even State workers are unaware residents are entitled to voter ID at no charge.

The failure to provide access to IDs should justify a Stay of this law and ruling.

Posted By: VotingRightsDeprived | Aug 15, 2012 4:01:09 PM

Good!

Done with.

Get your id and go vote.

If you cant get out, you are probably on the welfare
anyway.

Screw OB and Biden.

PA will swing republican this year.

Unless you really believe it is harder for a Dem to get ID than a republican.

Posted By: Tony Roma | Aug 15, 2012 3:55:50 PM

Well, the difference between voting and purchasing alcohol and cigarettes or engaging in financial transactions is that one is a constitutionally guaranteed right that cannot be abridged without due process of the law. According the the Brennan Center for Justice, the incidence of actual voting fraud is startlingly low. After hotly contested elections, investigations revealed the following: Missouri, 2000 - 6 fraudulent votes; New Jersey 2005 - 8 fraudulent votes; Wisconsin 2004 - 7 fraudulent votes. If the incidences of voting fraud are demonstrably low, why are state legislatures (and only R state legislatures) acting to combat purported fraud in a manner that has the potential to disenfranchise so many?

Now if we were collectively as passionate about our right to vote as much as we seem to be about our right to keep and bear arms . . . . call me a dreamer.

Posted By: Rocco | Aug 15, 2012 1:36:21 PM

just another communistic turn in the country!

Posted By: Nicholas Csorba | Aug 15, 2012 1:15:54 PM

This reporting is being broadcast around by the republican offices...that tells you to be worried as it is..........Anwer this......And this is total victory...for who? "I just can't believe it," Viviette Applewhite, of Philadelphia, the 93-year-old lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement. "Too many people have fought for the right to vote to have it taken away like this. All I want is to be able to vote this November like I always have. This law is just ridiculous."

Posted By: Nicholas Csorba | Aug 15, 2012 1:13:04 PM

Hey Joann, you need a SSN to register to vote; if you're an illegal, HTF do you 'fake' your SSN when you go to vote?

This whole debacle is a joke. I'm STILL waiting to see the list of voter fraud this Commonwealth has 'suffered' from.

Man, people are short-sighted and knee-jerkingly stupid.

Posted By: Dominic | Aug 15, 2012 12:30:49 PM

the fatal mistake people make is assuming "well everybody drives" when that is not the case, specially if you reside if a older Northeast city as in the case of Philadelphia (well Pittsburgh too) as this will only get ugly as this case presses on

Posted By: Jibreel Riley | Aug 15, 2012 11:36:03 AM

Great! It's about time we have people who will stand up for what's right, no matter who likes it. As I have always said, if it is necessary to show photo ID for alcohol, cigarettes, to cash checks, open accounts, get a loan... it should be mandatory to show photo ID for something far more important like voting to put people in charge of our country and our futures. As for the "elderly and poor" not being able to vote because of this, I do NOT believe that. Are we supposed to believe that the elderly do not have bank accts.? How do they cash their social security checks? What about the poor ppl? They need ID for work or even to get welfare. Those are just poor excuses from the left because they know they can't win without cheating and having illegals voting for them.

Posted By: Joann | Aug 15, 2012 11:22:46 AM

Leave A Comment

NOTE: Please express your opinions in a civil and respectful manner. Insensitive, inflammatory and derogatory comments will be removed at our discretion.